Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media

a reply to: TownCryer

The press has no right to determine what anyone can say about them.

Ever.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Agreed. You, I, or anyone can think whatever we want about the press. It's still a relatively free country. Hating the press though has no effect on reality. If you hate The Washington Post, your feelings have no effect on the information they present as news. You can choose not to read it, or even believe it. But your feelings do not effect reality.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TownCryer

The press has no right to determine what anyone can say about them.

Ever.

And the President has no right to challenge the free press, and use his office to try and harm those agencies. He can contest individual facts that he disagrees with, and provide his own evidence to counter their claims but it's going too far to use the power of his office to claim all of the press (except Brietbart conveniently) is lying to the public and is untruthful.

As I mentioned before though, this is all by design. Two sides both claiming the other is lying hides the truth. It muddies the waters and essentially removes the press from having any oversight over anything in government which is the goal. They want people to disbelieve anything, that way even if/when the truth does leak, it won't be believed. That lets those in power get away with everything.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

The press is stating that some criticisms have "crossed the line".

They are determining what anyone can say about them.

Not really, attacking freedom of the press is an attack against American principles. You are American right?

show us anything close to a law, and EO, an official plea, from the US government (See also TRUMP) that says anything at all about closing down, or limiting the press in any way.

There is a difference between talking about something and attacking free press. Does Freedom of speech still exist?

Well Trump is effectively attacking free press by planting seeds of doubt about their efficacy. Just carefully watching how he capitalizes "FAKE NEWS" in almost every one of his tweets seems to suggest that he has an agenda. My personal belief is that if he can get his most loyal fanbase to completely ignore (as fact-filled as they might be) anything a "formerly" credible news source has in print, then he can get away with almost anything without it being questioned. And let's face it, Trump thinks only what Trump says should ever be heeded or has any importance.

Yes, Trump has a massive ego. he thinks what he says is right and everyone else is wrong. But, he lives in America and has the right as a citizen to say what he wants. It's guaranteed by the Constitution. And if you haven't noticed, there has been a lot of false news floating around and it seems pointing it out makes you the bad guy. How on earth did that happen?

I agree, he has the right to speak his mind. What I do not think is, that he has the right to speak his mind as though he were still on his reality TV show without taking all sides into account and without being the voice of reason for a nation that needs a strong POTUS. Instead he seems to fan the flames of incredulity and chaos, while not presenting a distinguished presence.

I'm 100% behind removing corruption, bloat, lip-service from Government...I'm 0% behind it if the means are creating an American visage that is the world's stage laughing stock and shedding individual liberties.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: alphabetaone

A tweet or criticism cannot be an attack on free press, especially in a world where a cartoon can lead to gunmen storming the offices and slaughtering the staff of a magazine. Firebombs thrown into a newspaper office is an attack on the free press. A government that does not allow its people to start their own periodicals is an attack on free press. A tweet isn't an attack on the free press.

I think you may be deluding yourself a bit, if you believe that the spoken or written word isn't every bit as powerful (and sometimes more so) as armament.

I don't believe that nonsense one bit. It's as superstitious as saying black cats bring bad luck.

You don't believe that words are or can be as powerful as armament?

Answer me something then, why do we have moderators on here? Why are there foreign relations ambassadors? Why do we frown upon and teach our children not to cuss?

a reply to: Aazadan

The president can say whatever he wants and he can then enjoy the ownership and results of such.

But for the press to determine what anyone else can say about the press/media is insane in a free society.

The press is reacting the same way some would if you drew a picture of Mohammed. There is no god-damned "blasphemy" when it comes to commenting on the ####ing press.

Jesus Christ!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

The president can say whatever he wants and he can then enjoy the ownership and results of such.

And now, look where we are. Some of us would likely get along real well in the normal day to day...yet here we are arguing amongst ourselves while the joke is all on us and 'they' are laughing their respective butts off. Well done.

But for the press to determine what anyone else can say about the press/media is insane in a free society.

The press is not determining what other people can say about them...they are defending themselves. You seem to have the two confused. No different than if your neighbor called you an effin liar.

The press is reacting the same way some would if you drew a picture of Mohammed. There is no god-damned "blasphemy" when it comes to commenting on the ####ing press.

LOL no they're not. Their core business model relies heavily on the credibility...that credibility has been challenged (most irresponsibly I might add) by what should be the most distinguished and powerful seat in the nation...drawing a line in the sand and calling him out on his slander is the right thing to do and frankly the best thing for this country to do.

a reply to: alphabetaone

The president just said what everyone on this site has been saying for years and now everyone is pissing themselves because the president said what we've been saying for years.

The press has ruined their own credibility. They are as trustworthy as a junky asking for a signature loan. I haven't seen this much butthurt since the Preparation H Convention of '79.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: alphabetaone

The president just said what everyone on this site has been saying for years and now everyone is pissing themselves because the president said what we've been saying for years.

No you're very, very wrong. If that is all it was I would agree with you. But he, Conway, Spicer are simply making things up as they go along and moving the goal posts. He is constantly fabricating facts and figures (some that have been well known and documented on this very website) to suit a particular argument, then claiming that those facts were "FAKE NEWS" and people eat it up.

The press has ruined their own credibility. They are as trustworthy as a junky asking for a signature loan. I haven't seen this much butthurt since the Preparation H Convention of '79.

Enough with the hyperbole already....you cant paint such a broad picture to all media and news sources otherwise the entire process of citing sources is merely academic.

a reply to: alphabetaone

This has been a riot to watch and see evolve.

Just a year ago, the establishment in DC was reviled and integrity in journalism was laughed at.

But since Trump has been elected, everyone appears to be clutching their pearls and swooning if anyone questions journalistic integrity and the DC establishment motives.

I can't take anyone seriously if "all of a sudden" it is blasphemy to question or comment on MSM because Trump.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This has been a riot to watch and see evolve.

Just a year ago, the establishment in DC was reviled and integrity in journalism was laughed at.

But since Trump has been elected, everyone appears to be clutching their pearls and swooning if anyone questions journalistic integrity and the DC establishment motives.

I can't take anyone seriously if "all of a sudden" it is blasphemy to question or comment on MSM because Trump.

It's freakin' creepy ain't it? Sooooo many have suddenly flipped course that it's hard to make sense of it. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers come to life.

To see it here, on ATS of all places, is especially astounding.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The reason for this:

phys.org...

"Political beliefs are like religious beliefs in the respect that both are part of who you are and important for the social circle to which you belong," said lead author Jonas Kaplan, an assistant research professor of psychology at the Brain and Creativity Institute at USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. "To consider an alternative view, you would have to consider an alternative version of yourself."

Some of us can do this. Some cannot. But wit anyone, if you threaten their sense of identity, you can get some rather visceral reactions. The way the average partisan on ATS talks about Trump is the same way I talk when someone questions my honesty or integrity. I have ingrained those traits into my sense of self, like many do. Imagining that particular "other self" make me upset, and my response is rather harsh because of it.

So there's a few cents for you.

FWIW, im not here for the partisans. Im here for the ones who are not partisan. The ones who aren't here as gladiators.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is benefit to admit that you can and will be wrong on occasion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

The president can say whatever he wants and he can then enjoy the ownership and results of such.

But for the press to determine what anyone else can say about the press/media is insane in a free society.

The press is reacting the same way some would if you drew a picture of Mohammed. There is no god-damned "blasphemy" when it comes to commenting on the ####ing press.

Jesus Christ!

The President is Commander in Chief, Head of State, and Head of Government. Any action, even if acting as a private citizen is going to be viewed by everyone else through one or more of those filters. If the President fails to take that into account, the door becomes wide open to foreign policy blunders, product endorsements, and so on.

If you want another justification, the Commander in Chief is effectively in the military, even if a civilian. Members of the military lose their freedom of speech while on duty. The President is the same, and for the next 4 years he's on duty. After that, he can say whatever he wants.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is benefit to admit that you can and will be wrong on occasion.

Some folks don't get this. And its not just the overinflated ego's.

a reply to: Aazadan

Can you source for me where the President does not enjoy the same freedoms that we do?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Humility is as rare as Adamantium and just as hard to beat.

a reply to: Aazadan

He was elected to say outlandish crap, though.

Whether we like it or not, that was a huge part of his draw. That he would say outlandish crap.

Its hard to chastise him too much over something that was key to his victory. Maybe he's meant to bring about this sort of cathartic, skin shedding type of moment in Amerca. We all get so sick of the BS, and the answers to the BS, that we find an alternative solution.

It would make for good fiction, anyway. LOL

a reply to: Aazadan

If you were around in the 70s you may remember that soon after the conglomerates raised up to take the independent media it was talks of subliminal warfare been wag on the public during ads, I remember if am not misinformed, as it has been a long time, But the truth is that while people believe that the government protects the public from hidden messages it has never been laws to prevent that.

In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York in 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for marketing speech to be protected by the First Amendment, it must not be misleading. Subliminal advertising, by its very nature, does not fall under this protection. In the 1989 case Vance v. Judas Priest, a Nevada judge ruled that subliminal messages aren't protected by the First Amendment and do constitute an invasion of privacy. He also ruled that subliminal messaging was not used in that particular case because, to date, no one had proven that subliminal messages could actually move someone to act against his will.

smallbusiness.chron.com...

Now this brings me back to the way media is presenting news, fake or not the truth is we have free media but if the news are misleading to the public they are not protected by the second amendment

So there you have it, the Supreme court ruled on that back in 1979.

I wonder right now if we are under subliminal warfare right now.

a reply to: marg6043

The 70's are before my time. I don't think it's subliminal warfare right now. It's an attempt to completely shut out the media by claiming everything is fake. Even the media themselves don't know what is and isn't true, the lies run too deep.